FEMAGRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)

Fiscal Year 2019

1

Transportation Infrastructure Security Branch

▪ The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) is one of four funded grant

programs within the Transportation Infrastructure Security Branch:

Overview

Transportation

Infrastructure Security

Branch (TISB)

Port Security

Grant Program

(PSGP)

Transit Security

Grant Program

(TSGP)

Intercity

Passenger Rail

(IPR)

Transportation

Infrastructure

Security

Branch

Intercity Bus (IB)

2

FY2019 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)

Program Overview FY 2018 FY 2019

▪Purpose: PSGP provides funds for transportation infrastructure

security activities to implement Area Maritime Transportation Security

Plans and public/private facility security plans among port authorities,

facility operators, and state and local government agencies required to

provide port security services

▪Eligibility: Ports with Maritime Transportation Security Administration

(MTSA) regulatory requirements will be funded based on risk and

competitive project review

$100,000,000 $100,000,000

Program Highlights

▪ Program funding is fully competitive (typically funding ~380 of over 1100 projects received)

▪ Eligible applicants apply directly to FEMA for funding within their local Port Area

National Priorities:

❑ Enhancing the protection of soft targets

❑ Enhancing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and improvised explosive device (IED) prevention,

detection, response, and recovery capabilities

❑ Enhancing cybersecurity capabilities

❑ Addressing emergent threats, such as unmanned aerial systems (UAS)

Enduring Needs:

❑ Effective planning

❑ Training and awareness campaigns

❑ Equipment and capital projects

❑ Exercises 3

Key Changes

▪ Implemented in 2018, continued in 2019: 50% Cost share required of private entities

– Exception for projects that provide port-wide benefit, such as port-wide planning,

security camera systems with shared access, response vessels and other maritime

domain awareness systems

▪ Program priorities aligned with DHS priorities – project types funded in past rounds are

still eligible for funding in 2019

▪ Grant guidance is now split into 2 parts:

– Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) indicates administrative requirements for

submitting an application

– Preparedness Grant Manual (PGM) provides program specific guidance, such as

limitations of CBRNE and UAS capabilities, etc.

4

FY 2019 PSGP Timeline

5

Final Allocations

Announced

Notices of

Funding

Opportunity

(NOFO) Release

05/29/2019 08/2/201904/12/2019 09/30/2019

Awards

processed by

September 30

Applications

submitted to

FEMA

02/15/2019

FY 2019

Appropriation

Enacted

57 Days 65 Days45 Days

*Note: NOFO release and award announcement timelines are

Congressionally mandated.

Project Planning

▪ 46 U.S.C. §70107 … funding the correction of Coast Guard identified vulnerabilities in

port security and ensuring compliance with Area Maritime Transportation Security

Plans and facility security plans…

▪ Participate in your Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) meetings and

understand your port area priorities!!

▪ As a best practice, discuss and articulate your projects with the AMSC and/or PSS

prior to applying

▪ Read the NOFO and PGM to verify that you and your project are eligible!

▪ Develop a business plan

– Identify grant team: Project manager, grant manager, budget analyst

6

Application Requirements

▪ Read the NOFO – it will include application requirements!

▪ Register in Grants.gov immediately – takes up to 4 weeks, especially near application

deadlines. Application period might only last 4-6 weeks depending on the program

▪ Organizations must have a DUNS Number, active SAM registration, and Grants.gov

account to apply for grants

– Applicants must enter the DUNS number in the data entry field labeled

"Organizational DUNS" on the SF-424 form

– In addition to having a DUNS number, all organizations applying online through

Grants.gov must register with the System for Award Management (SAM)

▪ Failure to register with SAM will prevent your organization from applying

through Grants.gov

▪ SAM registration must be renewed annually

7

Application Requirements (continued)

▪ Initial application is submitted in Grants.gov (do not attach IJ and detailed budget)

– This generates the corresponding application in NDGrants!!

– Do this at 7 or more days prior to the application deadline to minimize delays

▪ Associate your application to your organization. If you are a new applicant, you may

have to create the organization in NDGrants – make sure you have an active account!!

▪ FEMA Releases your NDGrants application back to you

▪ Attach you investment justification, detailed budget worksheet, applicable

MOU/MOA and supporting documentation

– Assurances and certifications required

– Investment Justifications should be labeled as Sensitive Security Information (SSI)

– NOTE: Letters of support from Congressmen, Senate, etc. are not considered nor passed to

USCG for review. There is no added benefit to including letters of support

▪ MUST Submit final application via NDGrants

▪ DON’T BE LATE!! Applications submitted after the deadline will not be considered

8

Application Review

▪ All eligible applications receive an initial review by FEMA to ensure that they

are completed in accordance with the application requirements

– Include detailed budget worksheet and IJ

– Submitted on time

– FEMA will not notify applicants of incomplete applications during the

application period

▪ All completed/eligible applications are securely transmitted to USCG

▪ USCG conducts a field review to score and recommend projects based on:

– Whether the applicant is an eligible service provider or facility within the port area

– The effectiveness of the project in reducing COTP identified vulnerabilities and

PSGP priorities (note that city-wide projects may be denied in part or full)

– Whether it is submitted by a public sector entity or provides a port-wide benefit

(these will receive a 10% score boost)

▪ Projects may be reduced or denied due to ineligible and/or unjustified costs

9

Application Review (continued)

▪ Field Review scores are then provided to FEMA

– Projects that are not recommended by the Field Review will not be considered for

funding

▪ Prior discussions within AMSC may give you a feel for how well your project

addresses port area and program priorities

▪ Unfamiliar project may not be funded due to the short field review time and the

extensive process for determining maritime security needs

▪ FEMA hosts a National Review Panel to:

– Validate COTP recommendations; and

– Evaluate whether projects address the National Priorities. Those that do will

receive an additional 10% score boost

10

Application Review (continued)

▪ FEMA conducts an administrative review of all projects recommended for funding by

the field review to:

– Ensure cost share is included

– Ensure project costs are eligible under PSGP

▪ May reduce funding by eliminating ineligible costs

– NOTE: If we can’t figure it out, we reserve the right to deny the project!!

▪ FEMA applies the DHS Risk formula based on port area. Scores generated determine

port area by ranking projects based on Risk x Effectiveness. Funds applied to highest

ranked projects within each port area until expended. May limit port area funding

(typically 150% of risk score) to ensure broadest distribution of funds

▪ Based on the Field Review, NRP, Admin Review, and ranked in funding categories by

their risk and effectiveness scores, a funding decision is recommended to the

Secretary of Homeland Security, who makes the final funding determination

11

Examples of Funded Projects

▪ Rapid Response Boats:

─ High speed, 24/7 patrol boats critical for quick response to waterways or other

maritime infrastructure

▪ Equipment:

─ All life safety operations including fire suppression, evacuations, rescue of victims,

dewatering, mass decontamination, swift transport of first responders to a

waterborne or waterfront incident, and removal of victims from a vessel in distress

▪ Training and Exercises:

– Live situational exercises involving various threat and disaster scenarios, table top

exercises, and the debriefing of the exercises to continually improve utilization of

plans and equipment procured with grant funding

▪ Expansion and hardening of TWIC compliant access control:

– Installation of TWIC card and secure vehicle barriers, for activation during times of

heightened security measures

– Hardening of secondary access points to the Port, to include the addition of

reinforced gates used to prevent un-authorized vehicles from accessing the

perimeter of the Port

12

Examples of Projects NOT Funded

▪ Equipment or services not listed on the Authorized Equipment List as eligible under

PSGP

▪ Equipment or services listed as unallowable costs identified by the NOFO

– Commonly include tow vehicles, weapon related equipment, proof of concept

projects, hospitality projects (chairs, couches), etc.

▪ Equipment or services that do no support COTP priorities or PSGP priorities

▪ Equipment or services with no clear maritime security nexus

▪ Projects that do not include an eligible cost share (see 2 CFR 200.306)

– Particularly section (3) Are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of project or program

objectives)

– https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-

idx?SID=d50592213cb54dbc70c644e53bc1e316&mc=true&node=se2.1.200_1306&rgn=div8

▪ Projects lacking a corresponding budget

▪ Applications submitted on behalf of other entities (consortiums)

13

Quick Points

▪ Ensure that

– Your agency is eligible for this program

– Your project addresses PSGP priorities FY19 NOFO and PGM

– Your project is not an unallowable cost under PSGP

(TIP: keep the FY19 NOFO as a reference guide throughout the entire application process and

life of the award)

▪ Reimbursements

– are allowable for all eligible costs associated with the project and are identified

on the Authorized Equipment List (AEL) and not prohibited by the program or

federal legislation https://www.fema.gov/authorized-equipment-list

– Partially funded awards will clearly identify allowable costs within the award

documentation (budget revision required)

▪ The project Scope of Work (SOW) approved for funding at the time of application

should not be modified. If a scope of work change is needed post award, a program

analyst must be contacted, and approval required prior to making any changes or

work is performed

14

Best Practices & Common Mistakes

Best Practices

▪ Answer the following questions:

– Who will benefit from the project

– What is the project

– Where/When will the project be implemented and milestones demonstrating how long

– Why does it support PSGP local port area (maritime) priorities

▪ Use an electronic copy of the NOFO throughout the application process, and conduct word

searches for elements pertinent to your project to ensure compliance with program requirements.

– i.e. Personnel costs have limited allowability, and general operational costs are not funded

Common Mistakes

▪ Applicants fail to:

– provide a required completed/clear detailed budget worksheet identifying a cost-share match

– demonstrate a clear and concise investment justification for the project

▪ Projects appear to primarily support regions/inland projects and do not focus on Maritime Security

Nexus

15

Highlighted Key Areas to Know

Investment Justifications (IJs)

▪ Be concise, but descriptive

– Address specific PSGP funding priorities

– Identify existing or similar capabilities, as well as the vulnerabilities being addressed

– Don’t try to combine all projects into a single IJ (i.e. a fencing project should be separate from a

vessel project) nor separate a single project into multiple IJs (i.e. for a fence project, a gate

project, and lighting project would all be considered one “Facility Security” project)

– Explain where/ how the project will be used to enhance security in your port area

– Projects that fail to demonstrate the required cost-share, will not be considered for funding

– Detailed Budget Worksheets are required. Component breakdown of costs are specific (i.e.

don’t just say “Camera System - $100,000”, say (5) PTZ Cameras at $10,000 each, (1) 100 hour

DVR at $5,000, etc.)

– Cost categories should demonstrate total costs (i.e. total equipment cost, personnel costs such

as M&A, over time, backfill, and etc.)

– Cost-share, even if it’s in-kind, must be demonstrated as part of the detailed budget worksheet

– Budgets must be approved by FEMA before project work can begin. Some budgets may be

approved pre-award, others may require revisions to reflect final funding amounts and approved

costs

16

Highlighted Key Areas to Know (Cont’d)

Cost-Share or In-Kind Match Requirement

▪ A non-federal cost-share (cash or in-kind) match of no less than 25% or 50% of the total

project cost for each proposed project is required

▪ Cash and in-kind matches must consist of eligible costs (i.e., purchase price of allowable

contracts, equipment). A cash-match includes cash spent for project-related costs while an

in-kind match includes the valuation of third party contributions of services or equipment.

Likewise, in-kind matches used to meet the match requirement for the PSGP award may

not be used to meet match requirements for any other federal grant program

▪ Matching cost-share is subject to the same requirements as the federal share (i.e. budget

review and EHP review are required of your cost-share and the cost-share must be

outlined in the Investment Justification (IJ) and detailed budget worksheet

17

MTN/A

WYN/A

IDN/A

WA

OR

NVN/A

UTN/ACA

AZN/A

NDN/A

SDN/A

NEN/A

CON/A

NMN/A

TX

OK

KS

AR

LA

MO

IA

MN

WI

IL IN

KY

TN

MS AL

FL

SC

NC

OH

MI

PA

IINY

MD

DC

NJ

DE

CT

RI

NH

MA

MEVT

AK

HI

VA

GuamNorthern Mariana Islands American Samoa

Puerto Rico

Grant Programs Directorate State AssignmentsPort Security Grant Program

Virgin Islands

X

IX

VI

IVGA

III

WV

I

V

VII

VIII

Duane DavisSection Chief

Duane.Davis@fema.dhs.gov

II

IX

X

Khori TorrenceKhori.Torrence@fema.dhs.gov

Kim ChatmanKimberly.Chatman@fema.dhs.gov

Cara BlairCara.Blair@fema.dhs.gov

Omid AmiriOmid.Amiri@fema.dhs.gov

Jackie JacksonJacqueline.Jackson2@fema.dhs.gov

Patrice McMillanPatrice.McMillan@fema.dhs.gov

Kevin GrovesKevin.Groves@fema.dhs.gov

Mel VanterpoolMelvin.Vanterpool@fema.dhs.gov

Matthew PattersonMatthew.Patterson@fema.dhs.gov

Rene PhillipsLurranda.Phillips@fema.dhs.gov

18

Questions?

19